A prospective, randomized, double‐blind trial to evaluate the role of a short reducing course of oral corticosteroid therapy in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of our observational experience that a short course of oral prednisolone therapy might be of value in the management of symptoms of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) in men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one men with CPPS (inflammatory or non-inflammatory) for > or =6 months, and who had failed to improve with standard antibiotic therapy, were randomized to receive either a 1-month reducing course of oral prednisolone (nine) or an equivalent placebo regimen (12 men). The outcome measures used were the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), General Health Questionnaire-30 (GHQ-30) and the National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), which were completed at baseline and 3 months. RESULTS: Outcomes were analysed for the 18 patients (six treated, 12 placebo) who completed the 3 months of follow-up. At both baseline and 3 months, respectively, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the NIH-CPSI total score (P = 0.48 and 0.62; Mann-Whitney U-test), or in the HADS (anxiety, P = 0.85 and 0.67; depression P = 0.96 and 0.74), and there was no significant improvement or deterioration over time. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend to improvement in the depression score for the active group (P = 0.13). However, the clinical significance is doubtful, as both baseline and follow-up depression scores were within the normal range. No patient had clinically negative changes in depression. A 3-month follow-up analysis was not possible for the McGill Pain Questionnaire or GHQ-30 as not all patients completed the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the study showed no clinical benefit of using corticosteroids in the management of CPPS, the few patients recruited limited the validity of firm conclusions from the data. There was a trend towards an improvement of depression levels amongst subjects. The study highlights the difficulties of recruitment and illustrates the complex psychological profiles of patients with CPPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".